EMNERAPPORT INSTITUTT FOR BIOMEDISIN ANNUAL EVALUATION REPORT DEPARTMENT OF BIOMEDICINE Emnekode: COURSE CODE: Emnenavn: COURSE NAME: Emneansvarlig: COURSE COORDINATOR: Rapporteringsdato: DATE OF REPORT: BMED 381 Biomedical Nutrition Physiology Tanja Kögel 28.06.2017 INNLEDNING / INTRODUCTION: Semester / år: SEMESTER / YEAR: Godkjent: APPROVED: (admin.) Spring semester 2017 Studieleder IBM, 2509.2017 Kort beskrivelse av emnet, inkl. studieprogramtilhørighet. Kommentarer om evt. oppfølging av tidligere evalueringer. SHORT COURSE DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING WHICH STUDENTS/CANDIDATES MAY ATTEND. COMMENTS TO CHANGES BASED ON PRIOR EVALUATIONS. Biomedical Nutrition Physiology (5 ECTS) is a course available for students who have obtained skills in biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, cell biology, nutrition physiology - or equivalent - on bachelor level, preferably completed with a degree. The aim of the course is to train the students to evaluate the effects of food and food supplements at a cell biological and physiological level in a broader scientific context relating to health and disease. The course aims to give the students a research-based introduction into biomedical subjects (biochemistry, molecular biology, cell biology, physiology) in connection with human nutritional physiology. Focusing on areas like metabolism, signaling pathways and gene regulation, basic mechanisms that involve and are affected by the diet composition will be explored. Students will also learn about the background of lifestyle diseases, genetic diseases, and the effects of undesired toxicants in the diet. The course aims at developing skills necessary for independent, critical research interpretation within this field, i.e. reading, interpreting and discussing scientific articles, writing and presentation. In addition to attending the lectures, we will ask the students to read relevant scientific articles, to discuss them in a small group, and to present them in the form of a small essay, a short oral presentation and a poster. 11 students were registered for Biomedical Nutrition Physiology this semester. Among these students were 4 visiting students through different international agreements with The Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, 3 Master s students in Biomedical Sciences (MAMD-MEDBI), 3 Master s students in Clinical Nutrition (MAMD-NUCLI), and 1 Master s student in Human Nutrition (MAMD-NUHUM). 9 students came to the introductory lecture, and 6 students continued from there. Of the 6 students continuing and completing the course were 2 visiting students through different international agreements with The Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, 1 Master s students in Biomedical Sciences (MAMD-MEDBI), two Master s students in Clinical Nutrition (MAMD-NUCLI) and 1 Master s student in Human Nutrition (MAMD-NUHUM).
Mitt UiB (http://mitt.uib.no) is the Learning Managment System (LMS) used by all courses at University of Bergen. The student can find Syllabus and information at the Course site, contact information and lecture notes (if given). The Course site is also used for evaluation, see further down. For course description, visit http://uib.no/course/bmed381 For previous evaluation reports, please visit https://kvalitetsbasen.app.uib.no/popup.php?kode=bmed381 STATISTIKK / STATISTICS (admin.): Antall vurderingsmeldte studenter: NUMBER OF CANDIDATES REGISTERED FOR EXAMINATION: 11 Antall studenter møtt til eksamen: NUMBER OF CANDIDATES ATTENDED EXAMINATION: 6 Karakterskala GRADING SCALE «Bestått/Ik ke bestått» «PASS/FAIL» Bestått / PASS: 6 Ikke bestått / FAIL: - KOMMENTARER TIL KARAKTERFORDELINGEN / COMMENTS TO THE STATISTICS: Emnerapporten utarbeides når sensuren etter ordinær eksamen i emnet er klar. For muntlige eksamener er da resultatfordelingen endelig, men for skriftlige eksamener kan endelig resultatfordeling avvike noe om evt. klagebehandling ikke er fullført. THIS REPORT IS PREPARED AFTER ORDINARY EXAMINATION. FOR ORAL EXAMS, THE RESULTS ARE FINAL, FOR WRITTEN EXAMS, THE FINAL GRADING DISTRIBUTION MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY IF CANDIDATE COMPLAINTS/APPEALS HAVE NOT BEEN PROCESSED. SAMMENDRAG AV STUDENTENE SINE TILBAKEMELDINGER / SUMMARY OF EVALUATIONS GIVEN BY THE STUDENTS Spørreundersøkelse via Mitt UiB, annen evaluering, tilbakemelding fra tillitsvalgte og/eller andre. COURSE EVALUATION ON MITT UIB, OTHER EVALUATIONS, RESPONSES FROM THE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES AND/OR OTHERS. The students were asked to give their feedback in a short survey at Mitt UiB. Some of these questions were Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ), while others opened up for the students to give their own opinion as written text. The Survey should have normally have been opened no later than 14 days before the exam, and closed before the students got their grade. This year however, was it opened at the exam day, and then available for 1 month. I, the course leader was not aware that this was the norm. My rationale for the evaluation after the exam was that the students would not need to fear negative consequences of their critique if asked after the exam. I can change the date for next year, and switch on the anonymous function. Four of six students answered the questionnaires multiple choice alternatives per 6.6.. However, when I looked at it again the 28.6, after the evaluation was closed, one student had turned all answers to no answer, which I hope was just an error. Hvilken studentgruppe tilhører du? / Which group of students do you belong to? Please specify in comments. - 1: Exchange student from abroad, 1: Master in clinical nutrition, 1: Master in Human Nutrition, 1: No answer. Hvordan vurderer du det faglige innholdet? / Do you find the academic contents of this course to be: - 3: Appropriate. 1: No answer Hvordan vurderer du det pedagogiske nivået? / How do you rate the educational level of the teaching on the course? - 3: High 1: No answer
Hvordan vurderer du arbeidsmengden i emnet? / How do you evaluate the total workload of the course? Please specify in comments. - 3: Appropriate, 1: No answer. Hvordan vurderer du organiseringen av emnet? / What do you think of the general organization/structure of the course? Please specify in comments. - 1: Too poorly organized, 2: Well organized. 1: No answer. Hva var bra med emnet? / What did you appreciate about the course? - Vi lærer å lese forskningsartikler, og fokusere på hva som er viktig. Lærerikt å få skrive et essay som introduksjon til master, dette ga meg mye! Likte veldig godt at vi hadde mulighet til å sitte å snakke med forskere på temaene vi hadde hatt forelesning i og se litt hvordan ting fungerer etc... - Spennande temaer i forelesningene, flinke forelesere som er oppdatert på ny forskning. Kjekt å kunne følge med på forelesninger uten å måtte tenke på hva som er relevant til eksamen. - Jeg syntes oppbyggingen av faget var bra, at det var delt inn i forelesninger, lese artikler, essay og posterpresentasjon. Dette lærte jeg svært mye av. Hva bør forbedres med emnet? / What would you like to see changed in the course? - Introduksjon av essay oppgaven bør komme i begynnelsen av semesteret, med klare retningslinjer slik at den kan begynnes på mye tidligere. Da bør også første innlevering være i mars, slik at man har litt tid til å forbedre og ikke kun 2 uker mitt oppi eksamensperioden. Synes også at når vi holder artikkel presentasjonene hver uke, så kan man fokusere på at disse skal være like de man skal ha som posterpresentasjon i slutten/ eksamen. Da lærer man hvordan dette skal gjøres før eksamen, slik at vi neste gruppe som skal ha poster presentasjon/ eksamen ikke føler seg like usikre som oss... Synes også at mer informasjon må komme skriftlig. Som feks poster presentasjon, der jeg sendte ut et utkast først og fikk til svar at jeg måtte følge de instruksene som var gitt, men det det ble siktet til ble forespeilet som eksempler og poster eksemplene på ppt var noe helt annet enn hva dere forventet ble presentert fra oss... Datoer bør også ligge ut og ikke bare komme muntlig. - Likt arbeid for alle, framføre like mange ganger. Kan framføre artikler i form av poster for å øve til eksamen. Kollokvie var lite nyttig med 1-2 person per gruppe. Beskjeder og tilbakemeldinger ang. essay og eksamen må være tydeligere. Gjerne innlevering via MittUiB eller eksamen.uib.no, og ikke via mail til lærer. Emneansvarlig må godkjenne problemstilling/hypotese til essay før skrivingen starter. Bedre gjennomgang av poster, og klare retningslinjer. - Forelesningene om hvordan en skal skrive et essay kunne gjerne kommet tidligere, da mange allerede hadde startet å skrive essayet på dette tidspunktet. Har din interesse for ernæringsvitenskap økt, minsket eller er ved det samme etter å ha gjennomført emnet? Has your interest in nutrition science increased, decreased or stayed the same after this course? - Økt innenfor noen temaer. - Samme - Økt! Var svært bra at kurset var lagt frem på en mer vitenskapelig måte, og en lærte mye av å få feedback på essay og posterpresentasjon. Imagine another module would have been added to the course: Mini peer-review. After getting one round of feedback on your essay from the course leader, every participant would read two other essays (from two different participants) and give written feedback to them, before the essays are evaluated by the censurer. The censurer would need to see all comments given, and take into account if the feedback has been taken into account appropriately for the preparation of the last version of the essay. The course would get one credit point more. - 1: It would have decreased the likelihood that I would have chosen this course. 2: I believe fewer students would have chosen this course. 1: No answer.
EMNEANSVARLIG SIN EVALUERING OG VURDERING / EVALUATION AND COMMENTS BY COURSE COORDINATOR: Faglæreres vurderinger av emnet. TEACHER COMMENTS. Eksempel: Kommentarer om praktisk gjennomføring, undervisnings- og vurderingsformer, evt. endringer underveis, studieinformasjon på nett og Mitt UiB, litteraturtilgang, samt lokaler og utstyr. EXAMPLE: COMMENTS ABOUT PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION, TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT METHODS, IF NECESSARY. FUTURE CHANGES/CHANGES IN PROGRESS, STUDY INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET AND MITT UIB, LITERATURE ACCESS, LOCALES AND EQUIPMENT. 1) Some of the lessons were not attended by all students because they had other courses. If that could be avoided, it would be good. 2) From last year s course evaluation: Some students believe that the course provides easy credit, and are surprised by the amount of work an essay and poster presentation is. Wake-up occurs late during the course. They need to be made aware of that sooner. Therefore, I made the workload very clear in the first session. Three students left after the first session, but the remaining six stayed to the end. Therefore, I think this was a successful tactic. It is better that the students which are not motivated drop out earlier, than later. 3) The former course coordinator informed that the current concept works well and the students learn much during the presentation assignments, but that there might be motivation issues during the lectures. Several teachers were reporting of unresponsive students, except those students assigned for the week s presentation. After the lecture and presentation, the subjects will be discussed. For enforced attention, the discussion was more formalized than it has been before. The students that were not part of the presenting group were asked to prepare three questions to the article. At least one of the questions had to be asked in the discussion by each student. The asking student should indicate which part of the paper is addressed (introduction, methods, results or discussion). I also asked the lecturers to prepare 3 multiple-choice questions. The students had to take them after the course on the courses webpage. This time, I got feedback from the teachers that the studentds were participating actively. This points towards that multiple choice tests and enforced participation in asking questions works well as a method to tease the students towards higher activity. The students also did like the multiple choice quizzes. They actually asked for longer ones. However the teachers are more reluctant to provide more questions. 4) I divided the students to working groups for the entire course during the first lesson (which was taking rather long time) and then several students dropped out. Therefore, I had to redistribute them. That has led to some confusion. Next time I will only establish the work group for the first two colloquia in the first lesson, and the remainder when it is clear who will finish the course. 5) A student gave feedback that the workload was distributed unevenly and that the attendance of the colloquia, which was not compulsatory, was low, rendering the colloquia unuseful. Can they be made compulsatory? (Attentance to 75% of the ones one is assigned to)? 6) I presented some guidelines clearly in the general competence lessons, but had not written them down in the handouts. Not all students attended or memorized the guidelines. For example, many of the students did not realize that the poster should be in landscape for better readability on power point. I will write more details on the handouts next year, so the students can follow the written guidelines. This was also suggested by some students in the feedback. 7) One studend gave feedback that the dates should be presented written on the webpages. They were. But I will try to make it easier accessible next time.
8) The students would certainly benefit from a round of peer-review among themselves, and from a round of feedback for their posters. However, I evaluate the workload of this course to be already high for 5 credit points. I asked if they would want to do that for more credits, and they answered that higher workload would probably keep them from taking the course. Therefore we should do this, if at all, only facultatively. 9) One student did not find the comment bubbles in the feedback word-document of the essay. Therefore, she only corrected the suggestions I made in track changes, but not the (more serious) overall instructions. The censurer almost did not admit her to the final exam, amongst others because she had not followed up my comments. Therefore, next year, I will add a thorough instruction into word comment bubbles and track changes in the how to write a review article lesson. 10) Students asked to get the how to write lesson earlier during the course. That can be arranged. 11) Students asked to get to present the article presentations as poster-presentations, in order to prepare themselves for the final exam. That can be arranged. Then also the how to make a poster lesson needs to come before the scientific topic lessons. 12) There were some issues between students and the supervisors for the essays in those cases when the supervisors were not the supervisor for the planned master thesis. One student did not show up to the appointment and complained later about the supervisor, who was travelling then, not being available. Another student said the supervisor was unresponsive. Next year, I will remind the supervisors to be responsive, as the students have deadlines, too, and the students to show up to appointments, as professors/researchers often live a busy life. Overall, the concept worked well. The students showed a clear development from task to task and I had the impression of steep learning curves in scientific reading, understanding, writing and presentation and in knowledge about nutrition physiology. I deem the course to be very informative for the nutrition students, who else do not go into that much of depth in cell biological mechanisms. I find it very important for this group of students to have some insight into how the basis of the nutrition guidelines is researched, as they will use the outcomes in their professional life. Also for biologists, it is important to demonstrate that nutrition science is a potential professional field for them. This sense of meaningfulness is motivating me. MÅL FOR NESTE UNDERVISNINGSPERIODE FORBEDRINGSTILTAK / PLANNED CHANGES FOR THE NEXT TEACHING PERIOD HOW TO BE BETTER: «How to present» and «how to write» lessons earlier during the course. More content on the written guidelines. Easier to fin don webpage. Set up colloquia teams at first session only for the first two colloquia. Set up the remainder when it is clearer who will finish the course. Compulsatory colloquia? Add a thorough instruction into word comment bubbles and track changes in the how to write a review article lesson. Remind the supervisors to be responsive as the students have deadlines, too, and the students to show up to appointments, as professors/researchers often live a busy life. Course evaluation ends with exam and be set to anonymous. Otherwise, course as 2017.